Madoff Suicide Highlights U.S. Criminal Justice System Gone Awry

The recent headlined news story of the apparent suicide of Mark Madoff, the son of Wall Street wheeler dealer Bernie Madoff who is now serving a 150 year prison term in North Carolina for securities fraud, serves to remind many Americans of a U.S. criminal justice system gone astray.

A tragedy, and one in which the media and government most likely had a hand in this young man's fall, although the complete details and coroner's report has yet to be revealed.

Mr. Madoff senior bilked thousands of investors in his Ponzie scheme of a great deal of their wealth, from all reports, and was the mastermind of the scam and whose actions and activities were actually reported to authorities by his very own sons, although little has been revealed insofar as whether there was pressure also exerted on them to so do from governmental sources prior to his arrest.

Mark Madoff, from all reports, profited from his father's schemes, and was thus also then in the end targeted for investigation even after having been instrumental in his father's conviction.

The comments on most of the websites by the public have not been sympathetic, to say the least.

Which just goes to prove just how many in this country have truly lost their way in their understanding of the intent of our founders with respect to crimes such as these, which although heinous for the absolute thievery which occurred has not been adjudicated according to the "common law" provisions behind our criminal justice system in "letting the punishment fit the crimes," and in the government acting on behalf of the victims and not its self-serving ends since the punishments in so many crimes at both the criminal and civil levels are now statutory determined, rather than determined by juries of American citizen's peers.

The Madoff's, and all who profited from such schemes in this writer's view should have been henceforth precluded from ever serving in any fiduciary capacity with respect to other people's money from this day forward, and the spoils of their crimes seized and redistributed with interest to the victims of their greed and avarice.

Not the taxpayers having to now pay to jail and house Mr. Madoff in federal prison, and his son then "investigated" for the past several years, rather than concentrating on the crime itself and its victims and all parties' right to justice in a criminal fraud action, although by its very nature investing in Wall Street or the stock market clearly are risky ventures at best due to its "global" focus and composition again contrary to the intent of those founders for a "sovereign" U.S. economy.

Justice would mean recompense and precluding the perpetrators from ever being placed in such a position of trust and temptation ever again - since by their own actions proved through the "evidence" that their positions of trust were criminally abused.

Having to seek work in this now depressed U.S. economy in other fields of endeavor outside the financial sector, and losing all that they have gained at the expense of others with punitive damages added due to the nature of their crimes would have been the "legal" and "lawful" punishment called for.

Not years and years of "investigation," and subsequent media hounding - or innuendo without due process.

It was reported that Mark Madoff was found dead with his two year old child and his dog in the home where his body was discovered, with his true guilt or innocense still left undetermined although purportedly was still living a rather lavish lifestyle as a former employee of one of his father's commercial ventures, with authorities alerted by his wife who lived in another state and who had petitioned the court for a change of name for she and their son due to the continued ramifications of the crimes committed by Mark Madoff's father.

The press has been unforgiving. And the American public, most of whom were not even directly impacted by the senior Madoff's activities, just as unforgiving and brutal, although fundamentally all Americans have been impacted by the loosey goosey federal government's oversight of the Wall Street banks, bankers and profiteers.

Which governmental policies and practices in sufficient oversight of these Wall Street profiteers have remained for the most part unchanged fundamentally even since Bernie Madoff's arrest, and conviction.

Wake up, Washington. A two year old has just lost his father, and there is another Bernie Madoff trading his grandchild's future for a yacht.

Or just maybe, eventually, THIS grandchild might.

Texas Judge Rules Death Penalty Unconstitutional?

There's a storm brewing in Texas, it appears, over a recent ruling by a state district court judge in Houston on a murder trial.

Justice Kevin Fine, a Democrat, made a pre-trial ruling in Texas court that the death penalty was unconstitutional under Texas law.

Although his position appears to be not in accordance with the wording of the Constitution itself (U.S., that is, which would take precedence in all death penalty cases), but for moral reasons stating that it was logical to assume that there had been innocent people put to death in the past, and that he didn't think this was society's mindset right now.

"Selective" governmental initiated socialism once again rears its ugly head, since there are many in this country that would heartily disagree, if a clear reading of the Constitution itself is given any weight.

With all the criticism that has come down upon the judiciary for ruling from the bench for political reasons most of all rather than "legal" ones with judges being cognizant of just what the "law" actually is in such instances, this actually does take the cake, in my opinion.

Although the press once again went a little off the deep end in headlining a great many of the stories with a description of the judge involved as "tatted" and an ex-cocaine addict.

Of course, the hypocricy at this point in our history was missed if such a personal observation were to be used by the media in its reporting on this judge's ruling. Since it is interesting that a judge that is an admitted ex-addict (engaging in felony conduct under current Texas law) is now serving on the bench, where a great many of those that are or have been convicted under Texas law of felonies are not even afforded an opportunity to vote for the rest of their lives even after serving their time.

It makes one wonder with all the clear language in the Constitution yet his stated reasons given for his holding, if just maybe he might be suffering from what the 60's generation termed "flashbacks," or possibly his brain quite possibly affected if he was a heavy, long term user of that substance which definitely has a chemical affect on the brain.

However, what was missing in the reporting is that as an elected official he is also affiliated through a political party that has taken a platform and stand in the past against the death penalty throughout the country for any reason under pressure and lobbying from such "global" groups as Amnesty International, the Innocense Project (out of New York, a "civil rights" group headed by lawyers and as such under federal laws which have been passed taxpayer funded through reimbursements for legal fees, yet incorporated in New York it appears, but with also branches internationally) and many others.

Since that statute providing for reimbursement for legal fees incurred in bringing civil rights actions, a plethora of these lawyer lead groups have emerged also engaging in national then lobbying efforts as a sideline, rather than the independent or small pro bono groups of the past whose fees are strictly provided by private donations.

To state that it is "unconstitutional" under the Texas or U.S. Constitution rather than in his party's view, "immoral", is a blatant redefinition, once again, of the English language and the 14th Amendment.

And the fact that the death penalty was handed down in many, many instances by those founders for reasons other than capital murder.

Such as treason on that Constitution. Which actually is the highest criminal offense by an elected or appointed government official, even higher than capital murder.

He used the "due process" clause somehow in his ruling, however, the 14th amendment clearly simply states that a criminal in this country that is accused of a heinous crime involving the taking of another citizen's life, or their property even (since horse thieves were also handed down the death penalty in Texas and in many states throughout the nation, theft of personal property was also a major capital criminal offense), an American is entitled to not "mob violence," but a review and trial by a jury of his peers (due process) in the state and jurisdiction in which the alleged crime occurred, and a chance to then face his accusers and hear and repute the evidence against him.

I am unaware of just how the provisions in Texas's criminal code are written since now the states have taken it upon themselves also to either expand, or water down, the U.S. Constitution in this respect also progressively through their legislative processes, but whether or not the death penalty is Constitutional or not since it is actually addressed within the language of the Constitution itself, speaks for itself.

Or the fact that "res ipsa loquitur" (the thing as it speaks) is the common law provision which is supposed to be rule of law with respect to Constitutional interpretation clearly also was the founders intent as it is a contract between the government itself and its people, and the Bill of Rights were meant to give the people, not the government, the ultimate power in any such matter involving ANY civil or criminal offense committed by a citizen in this country.

And solidified by the 14th's clear language then prohibiting any citizen from being deprived of his "life, liberty or property" without such a right to due process, or that "trial by jury."

It appears to me that more and more the judiciary are using court rules, and legal shennagians in order to actually circumvent and neutralize the power of the jury in this country more and more.

First, by removing even that right for many criminal charges, not to mention civil offenses in ever increasing numbers, the most recent of which are now the low level DUI and "social drinking" taxes and charges with those per se laws based on a proven fallable method of testing, when unless there is property damage or bodily injury and direct victim involved is truly really under the intent of the founders and common law also, a civil offense actually to begin with.

The breathalyzer, which does not measure blood alcohol at all, but measures the concentration of alcohol (or any number of other agents) in a person's breath.

Which, when using or eating any number of other substances, other than alcohol, can affect those test results tremendously.

In fact, the interlock devices that are manufactured and ordered to be used by many who have been arrested or found themselves "guilty until proven innocent" in such matters warns not to eat bread (the yeast can affect the interlock device with a false reading).

But in the instance of the death penalty in this country, I would more understand this judge's ruling at an earlier time in our history, when the evidentiary standards for a death penalty case were much, much more lenient than in most state courts today.

The standard, after all, is "beyond a reasonable doubt," and what has occurred, however, is that more and more high profile crimes are being tried in the media and politics and public opinions are being swayed even before many of these individuals have had the opportunity to answer or even make their pleas.

The lines between the "public's right to know" and protecting the accused have gone by the wayside when the local news media is so hard pressed for news these days due to competition and "corporate" ownership concerned with the bottom line most of all than ethical standards, that most of the local news stations are more similar to Entertainment Tonight than actual news sources so biased, sensationalized and gossipy is their coverage.

And, after all, there are several different charges that should be placed before a jury in any murder trial in many instances, and not determined by a judge or the state prosecutor's office acting independently to begin with.

Voluntary or involuntary manslaughter (auto accidents, etc.), murder in the second degree (crimes of passion, precipitated or between individuals known to each other) and murder in the first degree (pre-meditated, unprecipitated murder).

This case apparently has to do with the shooting death of a woman in Houston during a robbery in which there were, apparently, witnesses to what actually occurred - an adult sister and her own children.

Now that many of these states have privatized their state prisons and are receiving federal grant monies and profits on the prison population by the head, I would expect that we will see more and more of such rulings as most of these states attempt to squeeze every dollar out of the public they can since people, even prisoners, are now commerce.

I hate to dispute this judge's stated reasons, there are now throughout the nation more and more minor offenses being criminalized in order to increase that prison population for revenue purposes as a "mitigating" factor in why our prisons are now bulging at the seams, and mostly with low level misdemeanor offenders guilty of actually victimless crimes at that.

Or more and more of such instances are occurring in order to also bulk up local court's budgets due to the fact that the Bar Association itself lobbied for a law providing for legal fee awards on their behalf for any and all cases involving civil rights actions, and this case is being prosecuted by the county attorney's office and a public defender it appears representing the accused.

So this off the wall rendering could be and most likely is, in my opinion based on the information available through our somewhat sensationalized media, politically motivated, since now the state can also gain revenue from the lengthy federal appeals process over this judge's bench ruling which obviously blatantly flies in the face of the Constitution's clear language and make money for the state coffers then while so doing.

Harris County apparently is a county which leads the nation in death penalty cases, and appears just may be one of the more poorly funded districts in the state to begin with due to the amount of poorer or indigent people living in that county.

Maybe their share of the stimulus wasn't enough, since Governor Perry refused some of those sums according to his most recent election campaign jargon, or maybe those sums which were handed out for state budgetary purposes just didn't get to Harris County but stayed in Austin.

After all, our entire country's government at this point is so unconstitutional, taking such a position in light of all the Constitutional violations going on due to the entire convoluted framework as outside Constitutional intent and parameters of our government makes this position both questionable, and almost laughable.

I would agree, however, with this judge that most likely there have been individuals that have been put to death in this country who MAY have been innocent of first degree murder, or unprecipitated murder as under the common law definitions demanding the ultimate penalty under the law - forfeiture of life.

But we aren't putting to death horse thieves anymore (or car thieves), and with the number of appeals now available to most death row inmates, there have also been those that have decided not to pursue the appeals process and even waived it.

I do feel that such drastic punishment should be reserved for those that are deemed by a jury, upon factual evidence and eyewitness testimony or truly "weighted" evidence, and should be used only according to the stated law: against those who, for whatever reason, murder innocent people as in the case of a robbery gone wrong as this appears on the surface, or many of these serial killers who cannot be rehabilitated in any way to be trusted to live among society, or at the very least, incarcerated without the possibility of parole, when there are no "mitigating" circumstances leading up to it.

But "unconstitutional," only if we are again, judicially redefining the English language and not the words of the founders or their intent since the 14th only cements what was their clear purpose at the signing as a government "of the people."

It is the jury that has the right to throw out the death penalty, if they so deem the facts of the case at hand demands it or is "societally" unacceptable in their view under the circumstances, and weight should also be given to the victim's family in such a rendering as the actual victims of the particular crime and who those prosecutors are actually supposed to be their "clients" acting for the victim's family members, state and its citizens on their behalf.

And without a clear vote of the people of Texas in any event, it would seem our judiciary is getting more and more bold in some of their fabrications and renderings now at every level balanced against their oaths of office, since the wording is pretty clear.

Or corrupted by the public opinion polls and media itself in now how many outside "globally" focused agitators and groups are getting involved in U.S. political matters to begin with, since it appears global socialism and "international" law rather than our Constitution's language itself is a trend that is also occurring at the highest level in some rather recent Supreme Court rulings and renderings.

Protection of the accused American is foremost under our stated Constitutuion. And the jury was and is intended to be that protection, baring any corruption of the jury itself.

And if it is "cruel and unusual" punishment insofar as premeditated homicide is concerned, then our jails are full of people at this point that are being incarcerated without even the right to trial by juries in a great many misdemeanor offenses more and more, and some of these misdemeanor offenders have died in local jails and prisons that were "cruel and unusual" in their facilities to begin with.

Dehydrations of low level offenders recently in some in the West, even. Where the "punishments" now truly do not fit those crimes, and made without any review or oversight of judicial renderings rather than at the will of the people based on the evidence.

Gee, maybe he should have been the judge ruling over the Teri Schiavo matter in Florida. If it is immoral or "unconstitutional" and "cruel and unusual" punishment to sentence a convicted murderer to death, then just what was it to sentence a handicapped, innocent 40 year old woman?

Where was Amnesty International then, I ask?

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/03/05/tatted-up-texas-judge-declares-death-penalty-unconstitutional/tab/article/

Yet, this is what is going on in Harris County with respect to misdemeanor offenders with outstanding mostly civil court traffic violations:

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Harris-County-sweeping-minor-offenders-in-Great-Texas-Warrant-Roundup-86726392.html

Governmental Overkill: Woman Fined 1.9 Million For "Pirated" Works

CNN reported another incidence of corporate/governmental overkill now going on in our nation with respect to the recording industry's pursuit of any and all Americans that download songs or sounds without paying for them from the internet.

Now I admit there is quite a problem with this for writers and other artists, especially due to the fact that there is a clear lack of regulation over the commercial websites that market to the public for writers and artists in order to make the ad revenues and also for other nefarious purposes.

And there are citizens who abuse the Internet also as a free source of material which is, under U.S. laws and those of most countries which are under "common law" civil provisions (including Canada, Britain and most of the European nations in the EU) with respect to copyright protection for artistic works.

Many citizens also have been misled to believe that since the Internet is a public communications tool, that any and all material on it are covered under public domain provisions.

That is not the case anymore than you can copy text out of a library book simply because it is in the library.

The problem with this particular case was not so much the infraction, but the costs of the trial and the award involved for going after a woman who illegally downloaded five songs, which due to judicial error and technicalities with respect to jury instructions given ended up resulting in two different jury trials in a federal court. It didn't even meet the CIVIL threshhold for an afforded trial by jury, since those limits are $20.00 under the Constitution.

And while U.S. citizens throughout the nation now under the new criminal DUI "social drinking" levels and laws are denied jury trials in many states throughout the nation due to another redefinition and unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling in effect attempting to eliminate the right to trial by jury for "ALL criminal matters," by inserting the words "unless the term of incarceration is six months or more," this trial was initiated over a civil infraction actually due to the financial "loss" involved for five downloaded single songs.

There is an has been a move to criminalize such activities which has been in the works for years and this may be the case, but if so would appear the criminal fines and penalties are still out of whack for the actual infraction and loss involved here, in my and most rational citizens opinion. This would clearly have been a criminal misdemeanor, since the amounts involved don't even meet the civil jury trial minimum of $20 under the Constitution.

Apparently, the jury found her guilty, and the amount of the "fine" imposed was 1.9 million, over the amount of the original award in the first trial of $220,000. "Cruel and unusual punishment" doesn't even begin to describe how ludicrous the actual award was, and also the lengths that the federal courts went to in order to prosecute this woman and mother of four.

There was absolutely no report or evidence, apparently, that she had redistributed the works, or made any profit off of her illicit activity. So the loss involved to the recording company as the "injured" party under both civil and criminal common law according to the "proof" of damages required in such a case as this would have simply been the amount of the cost of the retail price for the music, which was less than $5.00.

Of course, now there will be another appeal, and the legal fees at this point must also be off the charts, and wonder just exactly why the judge didn't simply throw this case out the window due to the amount of the proveable damages involved as less than even the provisions for civil minimums for jury trials.

It did not state also whether or not the jury actually did determine the award, or whether these "fines" were determined under federal statute and levied by the federal judge which has become the case with many a "political" case meant to set a precedent or as a tyrannical power move by the federal government, and if that was the case, we do have a bunch of governmental officials that are off their rockers in again their lack of even giving any cursory value to the Constitution. Fines in that amount are beyond what any "average" American could pay and nothing more than again tyrannizing the public for the record executives, apparently.

I wonder if the jury instruction was given that the jury had the power to actually also examine the law and the penalties for applicability in this case based upon the actual facts and losses involved.

True bootleggers would have redistributed the work, and then there would have been certainly more to gain in going after those that are profiting off of pirated works, not simply for their own enjoyment.

You can make a tape off a radio station, for heaven's sakes, or a CD from your friends purchase which carries no penalties at all unless it is also "resold" for commercial purposes and meets the damage threshhold.

If this was a jury determined award, I wonder if the lawyers voir dire in the jury selection determined whether or not any of these jurors were record executives, or federal employees.

And with awards such as these, it would appear our federal government is flush with cash due to their tyranny and are truly bankrupting the citizenry with such abusive practices, so perhaps had more than enough in the kitty rather than borrowing from the Fed at the public's expense, in order to bail out at least one of those automakers without also placing the debt on the public - since this poor woman is going to be paying this off for the rest of her life, in addition to funding the Big Three.

More importantly, it appears due to the publishing by CNN of this case it is simply another example of governmental tyranny on the public more than anything.

This mother was simply made an example, so I truly wonder how "impartial" that jury was, or whether it actually was one of her "peers," or a loaded jury with public federal or state employee "professional" jurors which is becoming more and more the case when there is a governmental agenda involved, or when there is federal grant monies tied in with some of the convictions (as in the low level DUI laws now), since there are strings attached to most of those pork sums sent "back home" by the feds in order to keep the states in line with the federal agendas, and the funding rolling in.

Unbelievable.

Maybe going after the Chinese and Taiwanese designer rip-off artists who import to their buddies living in the U.S. through the mail and ports of entry would be a much better use of our courts, and those internet scam artists now luring writers and artists making ad revenues of their designs and work for advertising purposes, and then attempting to shelter themselves from any and all liability if such work is redistributed either intentionally or accidentally within their non-negotiable "terms of service" agreements written also by their "corporate" lawyer scam artists.

We don't need free speech regulation of the internet unless harassment and stalking websites and engaging in repeated and profane personal attacks are involved, we need "corporate commercial" regulation of the scammers preying on the public, and paid governmental "grant money" bloggers promoting their propaganda for governmental purposes, both political and for their "corporate" personal gain, such as the Republican, Democratic and other mainstream extra-Constitutional fringe "party" members, marketers and spin doctors spewing party platforms and their agendas as "Constitutional" positions.

That, too, is civil fraud, and actually worse, criminal treason ala Benedict Arnold, the highest criminal "public" offense "against the state" and people in this country under the governing law, the U.S. Constitution and intent of the founders. And neither private citizens, nor especially public servants or individuals have any inherent immunity in that respect, especially for intentional negligence or intent in their public servant positions, since their oath is to the Constitution and not "public opinion" or "state or personal interests."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html?eref=rss_topstories